openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: unenhanced class support
Date Sat, 21 Jul 2007 17:17:05 GMT

On Jul 20, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Patrick Linskey wrote:

> So, I'm looking for answers to the following questions in particular:
>
> 1. what should we do about { Java 5, no javaagent, field access }?
> Should we support this configuration, including the corresponding
> extra overhead, or should we require either property access or a
> javaagent specified in these configurations?

I think we should do EAGER fetching of fields just like the other  
implementations have to do.
>
> 2. what should we do about { Java 5, no javaagent, property access,
> flushed | cleared instances }? There is a much lower impact to doing
> the dirty tracking in these configurations, since the scope is
> narrower. However, we might also be able to just not allow flush or
> clear or multiple sequential transactions if the persistence context
> has references to unenhanced, unredefined user-created instances.

I think that no other implementation will have much of a better  
solution. So I don't see that we should try to exclude user options  
or a possible solution just because it's a poor performer.

Craig

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!


Mime
View raw message